Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)

1,582 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 857 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Poole v. Cletus J. Fitzharris
  396 F.2d 544· 9th Cir.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defense attorney can waive certain Sixth Amendment rights, like confrontation, as a matter of trial strategy, absent exceptional circumstances.
• Myers v. United States
  390 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a prosecutor's improper, prejudicial question, even if not cured by an instruction, does not require a mistrial if the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming and the judge's cautionary instruction is clear.
• United States v. Jackson
  390 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1968-02-15 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  No hearing was required for the withdrawal of a guilty plea after probation was denied and a prison sentence was imposed.
• United States ex rel. Ralph Staino, Jr. v. Brierly
  387 F.2d 597· 3d Cir.· 1967-12-29 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the use of a prisoner's silence as a "tacit admission" of guilt, under the circumstances of this case, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Williams v. United States
  365 F.2d 21· 7th Cir.· 1966-07-07 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  A motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 cannot be used to challenge the sufficiency of evidence already decided on direct appeal, nor can it raise issues not of constitutional dimension.
• Blanchard v. United States
  360 F.2d 318· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-09 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for production of destroyed narcotics, admitting a destruction certification, or allowing a government agent to listen to a consensual telephone conversation, and that the appellant was not a mere purchasing ag
• Davidson v. United States
  349 F.2d 530· 10th Cir.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's guilty pleas were not coerced and he was not denied his constitutional rights, including the right to counsel.
• Pearson v. United States
  325 F.2d 625· D.C. Cir.· 1963-11-14 ·cited 6×
  A defendant's voluntary absence from trial due to disruptive behavior does not violate constitutional rights or Rule 43, allowing the trial to continue.
• Howard v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Colo.
  318 F.2d 521· 10th Cir.· 1963-06-20 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the federal district court properly disbarred the attorney based on state disbarment proceedings, and denied his motion for a jury trial.
• Kissinger v. Frankhouser
  308 F.2d 348· 4th Cir.· 1962-09-12 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the hospital record containing the results of a Bogen's test for intoxication was admissible under the business records exception, and that issues of gross negligence, proximate cause, and contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury.
• Stefena Brown v. United States
  234 F.2d 140· 6th Cir.· 1956-05-18 ·cited 6×
  A party who voluntarily testifies in their own behalf in a civil proceeding waives their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding relevant cross-examination questions.
• Raymond v. State
  257 So. 3d 624· Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-11-02 ·cited 5×
  The admission of the victim's detailed statements to responding officers, made after the emergency had ceased and in response to police interrogation, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless error where the victim did not testify and t
• Lebron v. State
  232 So. 3d 942· Fla.· 2017-12-21 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Joel Lebrón's convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, robbery, and sexual battery arising from a brutal 2002 crime in which he and codefendants abducted two high school students, raped one, and murdered her. However, t
• Vilseis v. State
  117 So. 3d 867· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-07-17 ·cited 5×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Vilseis's burglary and grand theft convictions because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by admitting a key eyewitness's discovery deposition as substantive evidence when she was unable to testify
• Diaz v. State
  62 So. 3d 1216· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-06-10 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting hearsay testimony regarding an anonymous tip identifying the defendant was reversible error because it violated the defendant's right of confrontation and was not harmless.
• Dimy Paraison v. State
  980 So. 2d 1134· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-03-26 ·cited 5×
  Dimy Paraison appeals his convictions for armed burglary, kidnapping, and armed robbery following a guilty plea in which he reserved the right to challenge the admission of the victim's hearsay statements under Crawford v. Washington. The court affirms, holding that while stateme
• Essex v. State
  958 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-05-02 ·cited 5×
  Raymond Essex appealed his conviction challenging the admissibility of his former testimony from his niece, B.D., at his second trial after his convictions were reversed and remanded. The court affirmed, holding that the state satisfied its burden of showing B.D. was unavailable
• Ragin v. State
  939 So. 2d 330· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-10-18 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  Melvin Ragin appeals his conviction and sentence for false imprisonment, burglary of an occupied conveyance, and grand theft. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed his sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) on the burglary charge because burglary of a
• Lebron v. State
  894 So. 2d 849· Fla.· 2005-01-13 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jermaine Lebron was convicted of felony murder and robbery, but the guilt phase jury made special findings that someone else shot the victim and Lebron did not possess a firearm at the time of murder. The Florida Supreme Court vacates his death sentence imposed on resentencing be
• Blake v. State
  180 So. 3d 89· Fla.· 2002-08-12 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  Harold Blake, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 2002 shooting death of Maheshkumar Patel during an attempted robbery, appeals the denial of his postconviction motion to vacate his conviction and sentences and petitions for habeas corpus. The Florida
• Small v. Superintendent Jeff Endicott & Kenosha Cnty. Cir. Court
  998 F.2d 411· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition under Rule 4 because the petitioner failed to state a claim for relief on any of his grounds.
• Sargent v. Armontrout
  841 F.2d 220· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because any potential errors were either harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the claims.
• Montes v. State
  516 So. 2d 1047· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-15 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
• Bright v. Shimoda
  819 F.2d 227· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial judge committed constitutional error by precluding inquiry into the witness's knowledge of the victim's specific violent conduct during cross-examination.
• Renzi v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  794 F.2d 155· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prosecution's misleading conduct in failing to produce a key informant, despite promises, deprived the defendant of due process, entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.
• United States v. Ciro
  753 F.2d 248· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the exclusion of a witness's juvenile adjudication did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or constitute an abuse of discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 609(d).
• Kreck v. Spalding
  721 F.2d 1229· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the information was constitutionally defective for failing to adequately apprise the defendant of the charges, and that procedural default did not bar federal habeas review.
• United States v. Cifarelli
  589 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on probable cause and adequate showing of other investigative procedures, and that the admission of a codefendant's statement, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• State v. Sigerson
  282 So. 2d 649· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-09-12 ·cited 5×
  The State appealed a trial court's order granting a defendant's motion to suppress marijuana evidence discovered during an airport security search. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause for the search and tha
• Henry v. State
  94 Fla. 783· Fla.· 1927-10-27 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for extortion, holding that the defendant's voluntary and momentary absence from the courtroom when the jury initially returned its verdict did not invalidate the judgment. The court also found that the trial court's subsequent proc
• Sievers v. State
  355 So. 3d 871· Fla.· 2022-11-17 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Mark D. Sievers was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the 2015 hammer killing of his wife, Dr. Teresa Sievers, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, rejecting numerous challenges to both th
• Geovani Johnson v. State
  45 Fla. L. Weekly S161· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-15 ·cited 4×
  A party opposing a peremptory strike must make a specific objection to the proponent's proffered race-neutral reason for the strike, if contested, to preserve any claim of error regarding the trial court's acceptance of that reason.
• Jerone Hunter v. State
  175 So. 3d 699· Fla.· 2015-04-30 ·cited 4×
  Jerone Hunter appeals the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion for postconviction relief in a capital murder case involving the brutal murders of six victims in Deltona, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial of Hunter's ineffective assistance of counsel c
• Lines v. State
  143 So. 3d 1018· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-07-23 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever the trials of co-defendants.
• Helms v. State
  38 So. 3d 182· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-05-20 ·cited 4×
  James Helms was convicted of deriving support from prostitution proceeds and transporting a person for prostitution purposes. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew prostitution would occur and that an audiotape violated his Sixth Amendment confrontat
• Bleiweiss v. State
  24 So. 3d 1215· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-12-24 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  A trial court violates fundamental due process by denying defense counsel the opportunity to present oral argument before determining whether proof is evident and presumption great at an Arthur pretrial detention hearing, particularly in a complex case involving serious charges.
• State v. Alessandro Marci Possati
  866 So. 2d 737· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sought certiorari review of a circuit court's decision that reinstated a driver's license after the driver refused a breathalyzer test. The appellate court vacated its earlier denial and granted the DHSMV's petition, hol
• Williams v. State
  865 So. 2d 17· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-12-24 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that hearsay statements made by a child victim for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are admissible under section 90.803(4), Florida Statutes, even when made to a non-physician, as long as they are reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
• Baugh v. State
  862 So. 2d 756· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-10-31 ·cited 4×
  Raymond Baugh was convicted of capital sexual battery against a seven-year-old victim based primarily on the child's out-of-court hearsay statements, which the child completely recanted at trial. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that while prior inconsistent c
• Rainner v. State
  801 So. 2d 997· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-12-19 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in sustaining the state's objection based on surveillance location privilege without proper procedure, thus denying the defendant's right to cross-examination.
• Khalif Jones v. State
  739 So. 2d 1220· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-08-05 ·cited 4×
  The Florida appellate court reversed Khalif Jones's convictions for armed robbery, carjacking, and kidnapping because the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after prosecution testimony conveyed the clear inference that a non-testifying codefendant had implicated
• Williams v. State
  734 So. 2d 1149· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-05-28 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Williams appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting his arguments that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the seller and that the laboratory cocaine
• J.D. v. State
  705 So. 2d 44· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-12-15 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  In this juvenile delinquency case, the appellate court reversed a restitution order because the juvenile was not present at the restitution hearing and there was no evidence he waived his right to be present, following the precedent established in J.B. v. State.
• M.W. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  651 So. 2d 754· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-03-06 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed a dependency order against a father due to the improper admission of hearsay testimony from his children. While the court found sufficient evidence of abuse, the trial court failed to make required findings for admitting the hearsay, and this error wa
• Scritchfield v. State
  648 So. 2d 1246· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-01-20 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  This case reviews a driver's license suspension for refusing a breathalyzer test. The appellate court denied the driver's petition for certiorari, finding that his arguments regarding the arresting officer's absence and the voluntariness of his refusal were either waived or witho
• Green v. State
  667 So. 2d 789· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-01-04 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Willie Green was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault and sexual battery of a 14-year-old mentally retarded child based primarily on the child's prior inconsistent statements, which she recanted at trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that a prior inconsistent stateme
• Brown v. State
  648 So. 2d 268· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-01-04 ·cited 4×
  Ruben Brown appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to sever his trial from his codefendant's when the codefendant's hearsay statement was admitted. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the statement admissibl
• United States v. Garcia
  994 F.2d 1499· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, but the drug quantity calculation for sentencing was clearly erroneous. The court also found no plain error regarding the admission of coconspirator statements, lay opinion testimony, or the cro
• United States v. Romeo Trinidad Flores, Jr.
  985 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a codefendant's grand jury testimony, which implicated the defendant, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because the testimony lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and the district court improperly considered corro
• Townsend v. State
  613 So. 2d 534· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-01-29 ·cited 4×
  Jack Timothy Townsend appeals his sexual battery conviction, arguing that hearsay statements from a two-year-old alleged victim should not have been admitted at trial. The appellate court reverses and remands, holding that incompetency to testify does not satisfy the statutory re